My Dad always hated the Red Cross from back in his Navy days in the early 50's. He said that in the hospital, the Red Cross was selling cigarettes (or was it donuts?) for 10 cents apiece, while at the same time the Salvation Army was giving them away for free.

I really think it was cigarettes. But maybe it was donuts. In any case, he always held that against them.

The Red Cross will raise enormous amounts of money during major disasters. Not all of this money will be spent on that particular disaster.

This was a big problem in San Diego a few years back. There were some wildfires that (before the big one that burned houses in San Diego suburbs) burned a lot of Alpine. There was a big scandal about the Red Cross soliciting donations to help these people but spending very little of that money helping Alpine.

I believe the Red Cross argues that their mission is immediate disaster relief. If more money is collected during a widely publicized disaster than needed for that event, they save the money to use on other disasters, some of which get less publicity.

My Dad always hated the Red Cross from back in his Navy days in the early 50's. He said that in the hospital, the Red Cross was selling cigarettes (or was it donuts?) for 10 cents apiece, while at the same time the Salvation Army was giving them away for free.

I really think it was cigarettes. But maybe it was donuts. In any case, he always held that against them.

My grandfather sees things exactly the same way. Except the issue at hand was the Red Cross selling cups of coffee after a flood in his hometown in Iowa, but the Salvation Army gave coffee away, no charge.

My Dad always hated the Red Cross from back in his Navy days in the early 50's. He said that in the hospital, the Red Cross was selling cigarettes (or was it donuts?) for 10 cents apiece, while at the same time the Salvation Army was giving them away for free.

I really think it was cigarettes. But maybe it was donuts. In any case, he always held that against them.

My grandfather had a similar experiece during WWII, while overseas Flying B17's the Red Cross would sell cigarettes to the GIs, cigarettes that they got from donations here in the states, in his mind the Red Cross was trying to profit from it.

My Dad always hated the Red Cross from back in his Navy days in the early 50's. He said that in the hospital, the Red Cross was selling cigarettes (or was it donuts?) for 10 cents apiece, while at the same time the Salvation Army was giving them away for free.

I really think it was cigarettes. But maybe it was donuts. In any case, he always held that against them.

This site claims there's more to the story than that, and that the blame lies elsewhere.

My grandfather had a similar experiece during WWII, while overseas Flying B17's the Red Cross would sell cigarettes to the GIs, cigarettes that they got from donations here in the states, in his mind the Red Cross was trying to profit from it.

Ditto, 'ceptin' it was my father.

He was on a troop train going from Indiana to the east coast to ship out for England. While they were waiting for the ship the Salvation Army was handing out free coffee, donuts, shaving kits, etc. Then the Red Cross showed up, ran the SA off, and started charging for them.

The Red Cross is the one charity that I cannot remember him ever donating to.

This site claims there's more to the story than that, and that the blame lies elsewhere.

Interesting.

Quote:

B. The truth is that Red Cross officials and volunteers were just as upset about the sales as were the soldiers. The Red Cross was ordered to sell the refreshments rather than give them away as planned by Secretary of War Henry Stimson in 1942. Noting that American soldiers in Europe had more money than their Allied counterparts, Stimson feared that morale among the Allied troops was suffering. American soldier received refreshments free; Allied soldiers had to pay for them. To make living conditions more even, in the hopes of improving morale, Stimson ordered the Red Cross to charge for refreshments in the “rear area.” Mobile units that served at the front lines were exempted from the order and did not charge.

C. Although the incident occurred 50 years ago, many soldiers and their families continue to believe that the Red Cross used the war as a moneymaking opportunity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A further question would be: ordered to sell or not, who ultimately kept the funds collected? Did the Red Cross keep the profits? Did the Army?

... and, in hindsight, maybe the Red Cross and the Army should have figured out a way to give out free refreshments to ALL Allied troops, regardless of nationality (and, yes, I do realize there are costs/limts/etc.)

A fellow student of mine hates the Red Cross because he did his substitute service (Germany still has the military draft, which can be fulfilled at certain charitable institutions instead if you're a conscientous objector) and it pissed him off. But I don't think that's what the OP asked for.

__________________
"The banana has certain characteristics, appearance, taste, softness, seedlessness, easy handling, a constant level of production which enable it to satisfy the constant needs of an important section of the population consisting of the very young, the old and the sick."

I just donated money to the RC for the hurricane effort. I'm not thrilled about the bureaucracy or inept leadership of any organization but its the best I can think of to help desperate people 700 miles away.

How is that out of date? According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure) male-male sex is still by far the primary means of transmission. I don't suppose they want blood from intravenous drug users, either.

The Red Cross has a unique non-partisan position within the Geneva Conventions. I suspect there may be some correlation between people who have a problem with the Red Cross, and people who think the Geneva Conventions 'outdated' or similar.

Actually, it isn't really free. You have to pray with them, or at least listen to them pray over you while you get the coffee. Even if it's just them saying "God bless you" as they give you the coffee.

As a religious organization, the Salvation Army is trying to 'save' people, so the 'free' coffee is it's come-on to get people to listen to it's evangalism or to sit around and maybe read some of the literature they have around. Rather like the 'free vacation' you can get, if you are willing to attend a sales pitch at a vacation condo development.

Thus you are paying with your time and attention, even if you don't have to shell out actual cash. So it really is not completely free. TANSTAAFL!

So you condemn a world-wide organization for the acts of a few indivuduals in one of it's national branches?

More than a few individuals, and as is frequently the case in such stories, politics among big players was rampant. In any event, cheap, contaminated blood from an Arkansas prison has major-star status, and the Canadian Red Cross was a major player.

Quote:

MURRAY DOBBIN, GLOBE AND MAIL, 2003 - It is a story that will not - and should not - die. The tainted-blood scandal is tale of bureaucratic indifference, corporate greed and regulatory failure resulting in hundreds of needless deaths from AIDS and the equally preventable infection of thousands with hepatitis C. An investigation by The Kansas City Star newspaper has jolted the story back to life in North America.

I don't think I could be condemned, lets say, if I slammed a company for building exploding products on purpose when it didn't do this in, for example, Australia. Consolodated Widgets is Consolodated Widgets, whether here, in the U.S. or Australia. Sticking Canada in front of its name means little.

But is this turning into a GD? I understand your objection, so maybe this should not continue here.

My father-in-law (a WWII combat vet) claimed that during WWII the Red Cross charged the enlisted men for the coffee and donuts but gave them to the officers for free. He never gave a dime to the Red Cross.

Also, there was somewhat of a scandal involving the way the Red Cross used the money collected after 9-11. Essentially, they were not entirely up front about how they were using the money when, in fact, they were filling their coffers.

Actually the Red Cross's selling of things to soldiers did not end with WWII, unfortunately. My man was injured in Viet Nam and on a transport plane coming home he had a layover in Alaska. He was lying on a cot in a big open transport plane with the wind whistling around him, and various needles etc (he was run over by a tank), and the red cross came and offered to sell (SELL) him a nice ice cold 7-up. We don't give to them either.

There's also the matter of Israel. Because Arabic countries have the Red Crescent, and Iran (pre-Revolution) was allowed the Red Lion, Israel would like to have their own version of the Red Cross with a red Star of David (the "Magen David"). The Red Cross refuses, and they haven't really given forth a good answer on why Israel wouldn't be allowed a Red Star of David that wouldn't equally apply to the Red Crescent, which has left the Red Cross open to charges of anti-semitism.

The Red Cross, especially, has drawn a great deal of criticism for reportedly setting aside upwards of $200 million — which it solicited for its "Liberty Fund" by saying that all monies would be sent directly to victims' families — on other long-term programs such as blood storage, assistance to needy reservist and National Guard families, community outreach programs, and funds for victims of future terrorist attacks. In response, the American Red Cross has halted solicitations for September 11 victims, brought in an outside auditor to review the organization's spending and announced that it may triple cash gifts to families who lost loved ones on September 11. On 26 October, Red Cross President and CEO Dr. Bernadine Healy also resigned (or was forced out) in a dispute over the management of funds. Eliot Spitzer, the New York State attorney general, has proposed registering victims' families and other survivors in a database to allow charities to reach out to them instead of their having to find the appropriate charities, and the Red Cross has been criticized for "refusing" to participate in this program.

I dislike them because, after I donated blood through them once when I was in college, I started getting phone calls from them several times per week, even after I told them to stop calling. It pretty much comes down to my not wanting to deal with organizations that use my generosity to annoy me.

I dislike them because, after I donated blood through them once when I was in college, I started getting phone calls from them several times per week, even after I told them to stop calling. It pretty much comes down to my not wanting to deal with organizations that use my generosity to annoy me.

This is a big problem with almost all charitable organizations. When ever I donate anything I try and avoid giving out my phone number. Blood donations hoever hald a lot more regulation associated with them I am beleive you are re

Regarding the Liberty Fund, I posted something about that post-tsunami.

Regarding the Magen David Adom, the ICRC does have a good reason on the Magen David Adom issue. Two of them, really. The ICRC isn't supposed to be a religious organization - neutrality, impartiality, and universality comprise three of the seven fundamental principles. Most importantly, however, in conflict areas it's pretty important that the symbol be immediately and easily seen. A multitude of symbolic flags confuse the actors on the ground and, in some areas of the world, the Star of David would be a target - not so good for the people the ICRC is supposed to be helping. The ICRC has been for some time considering a new emblem, possibly a red diamond, to solve this issue. More here.

Regarding coffee, I don't quite get why so many people are still pissed off about that. It was yeeeeeears ago, folks. Not only has the order from the War Department been lifted, but the entire War Department has been lifted.

I gave blood regularly for almost 10 years to the Red Cross before I was told I couldn't anymore, because I'd spent more than six months in Britain over my entire life (they're afraid of Mad Cow Disease). I asked if there was any screening for the antibodies that could be done, or any prospect of developing such a test, because I wanted to keep donating, if possible. The Red Cross pretty much blew me off.

And now I keep hearing radio ads about blood emergencies, and how badly they need blood donors.... =sigh=.

Well, I will never buy a Honda because I was shafted by a motorcycle dealer 20 years ago. (The older you get, the shorter 20 years ago is, so for many Second World War vets, 60 years ago is yesterday.)

I personally hate the Red Cross for several reasons- when I had to give my own blood for a surgery I was having, they gave me no end of a hard time with the donations. First they wanted to charge me $60/pint (and I was doing 5 of them) to ship it to my hospital where I was having the work done. I didn't have the money to do that, to which they said "tough shit", in a nutshell. Then some of my family members were going to donate me some blood in case I needed more, and there was some ridiculous hoops to jump through and they were all going to be charged somewhere upwards of $100/pint to donate and have it specified for my use. Never mind.

So I ended up driving up every week near the hospital I was getting the surgery done at and doing my donations there. Worked out OK in the end, but I couldn't get over some of the charges they wanted to put on me and that there was absolutely no way around them or to make payments or anything- and I'd been a regular donor since I was 18 and COULD give. My father, too, is a lifelong donor. None of that made any difference to them whatsoever. We could all go shit in our hats as far as they were concerned.

About 6 months after my surgery I donated again. I was asked 10,000 times if I'd had surgery recently and I said yes and when. They took my blood, no problem. Bear in mind that this was 1990 and AIDS paranoia was rampant- at least it was for me. That's why I donated my own blood. As far as I was aware I'd received all of my own blood back, but I wasn't exactly awake and aware, so who the hell really knows? Anyway, about 4 days later I get a message on my answering machine.

And it was Friday evening when I got it and I couldn't call. And I was thinking what on earth could it BE except a positive HIV test? Never, ever had they called before for any reason whatsoever. Why do I have to talk to a nurse? WHAT WHAT WHAT??? I called first thing Saturday- sorry Nurse Ratchet isn't in and we can't give you any information- you have to talk directly to her.

So all weekend I was sick with panic and worried out of my ever loving mind. Monday morning I called Nurse Ratchet and she says "What was the date of your surgery again?" I told her the last week of April. She says "Oh, we changed our rules and you have to wait a year before donating after surgery now. It used to be 6 months but now it's a year. So we have to discard your donation. We just wanted to let you know."

I very nearly crawled through the phone and choked the life out of her, no lie.

I still donate blood, but it's to the local blood center. I'll give the Red Cross emergency money and such, but I'll never forget how little they gave a rats ass about me when I needed help and how bad they scared me over absolutely nothing.

Actually, it isn't really free. You have to pray with them, or at least listen to them pray over you while you get the coffee. Even if it's just them saying "God bless you" as they give you the coffee.

Well, if Joan Collins circa 1968 wants to yap about the atom, I won't object.

Regarding coffee, I don't quite get why so many people are still pissed off about that. It was yeeeeeears ago, folks. Not only has the order from the War Department been lifted, but the entire War Department has been lifted.

There are thousands and thousands of charitable organizations out there. Some are great but a lot are either misguided or corrupt. They all want my money and I can't give to them all. It's sometimes difficult to ascertain which ones are effective and efficient. As far as I am concerned, (and I suppose this is true for many people), it's one strike and you are out.

There are more effective and efficient organizations out there than the Red Cross. Maybe they are the biggest but that doesn't make them the best. I send my money somewhere else which is my perogative. In the same sense I will never, ever, ever give a cent to the United Way because of the total malfeasance of their Board in allowing their head guy to live a life of luxury with his 17 year old girlfriend while expensing it all to the UW. Again, one strike and you are out.

How is that out of date? According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure) male-male sex is still by far the primary means of transmission. I don't suppose they want blood from intravenous drug users, either.

Maybe so, but "are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977" is out of date, IMO. It doesn't take 28 years for HIV/AIDS infection to show up.

That seems to be a standard question and not limited to the Red Cross. I've given blood to the Red Cross (only option I had in Pennsylvania) and to the United Blood Services (where I first started giving blood and just gave blood again on Monday.) Both places seem to have the exact same list of questions.

It's a standard question for blood donations in the UK (which are nothing to do with the Red Cross). However, it's one that is occassionally identified as something that should be removed, and it probably will before too long.

In the same sense I will never, ever, ever give a cent to the United Way because of the total malfeasance of their Board in allowing their head guy to live a life of luxury with his 17 year old girlfriend while expensing it all to the UW. Again, one strike and you are out.

I used to agree with this about UW, but finally decided my belief was only harming the ones who needed help. Not knowing much about charity, I guessed that steady, long-term financing was preferable to occasional, wildly enthusiastic gifts (treatment centers can make long-term plans; knowing a roughly steady source of income exists). So I started my regular paycheck deductions (for UW). They still irritate me, but I figure it's the best way to get steady help where it's needed.

The Red Cross's failure to provide an accurate tally of the hurricane victims living in hotels, thus grossly overstating the cost to the government, has undercut its efforts to reassure the public that it has adequate systems to account for the $1.2 billion it has collected for the relief effort.

Even before the housing mistake, the organization was struggling to overcome complaints from hurricane victims and its own volunteers working in the Gulf Coast area that it had been slow to respond, bureaucratic and disorganized.

State regulators and the group's former president have also criticized the organization as lacking transparency and accountability.

Among certain fringe elements of society, another reason to hate the Red Cross is the belief that the organization is one of many tentacles of the Illuminati/Zionist bankers/Trilateral Commission monster of World Government. As this article states (bolding mine):

Quote:

Col. House continues: The "peaceful return of the American colonies" can only be brought about with "the consent of the dominant group of the controlling clans."

Col. House relates how these classes are being taught to accept "British" leadership. He details how the universities and press are staffed by "British-born" or Canadians.

"Through the Red Cross, the Scout movement, the YMCA, the church, and other humane, religious, and quasi religious organizations, we have created an atmosphere of international effort which strengthens the idea of unity of the English speaking world."

The Overseas Clubs, service clubs, and war charities "enable us to pervade all sections and classes of the country."

Colonel Edward Mandell House is identified elsewhere in the article as "the Rothschild agent who secretly directed U.S. affairs during the Woodrow Wilson administration."

Actually, it isn't really free. You have to pray with them, or at least listen to them pray over you while you get the coffee. Even if it's just them saying "God bless you" as they give you the coffee.

As a religious organization, the Salvation Army is trying to 'save' people, so the 'free' coffee is it's come-on to get people to listen to it's evangalism or to sit around and maybe read some of the literature they have around. Rather like the 'free vacation' you can get, if you are willing to attend a sales pitch at a vacation condo development.

Thus you are paying with your time and attention, even if you don't have to shell out actual cash. So it really is not completely free. TANSTAAFL!

This has never been my experience. The SA is a religious organization and they don't hide that fact. However I have been involved in several disasters and I have never seen them push religion on anybody. If they try to convert anyone it's through their devotion and self sacrifice. I have never heard anyone pray over me or even say "God bless you" when handing out coffee. I'm sure if I asked them about their beliefs they would tell me but I am not interested. I was greatfull for the help and I donate when I can. Things may be different at the homeless shelters they run but I saw no praying or recruiting at disasters.

Am I the first one to mention the credits the Red Cross movement, led by the International Committee of the Red Cross, deserves for its role in the development of humanitarian and international law? It played a crucial role in the Geneva Conventions and helped people all around the world long before most of the other charities, as valuable as their efforts are, came into existence.

The link about its "scandalous history" doesn't seem to be too trustworthy. Take this quote:

Quote:

The Red Cross was founded in 1881 by Clara Barton, who became famous during the Civil War for organizing the distribution of food and medical supplies to Union Army soldiers.

That's just plain wrong. It was founded in 1863 by Swiss citizen Henri Dunant. The American section was founded in 1881 by Ms Barton, but you should not mix this up. The Red Cross/Red Crescent/Red Lion system is a particularly complex one.

__________________
"The banana has certain characteristics, appearance, taste, softness, seedlessness, easy handling, a constant level of production which enable it to satisfy the constant needs of an important section of the population consisting of the very young, the old and the sick."

It's interesting how many people have reported dislike for the Red Cross for something that happed in WWII. My grandfather, veteran of WWII, also hated the Red Cross and would never donate to them, although I'm uncertain as to what the exact reason was - perhaps my mother or grandmother knows. I'd ask Papa, but he died in 1983.

Curiously, my father also pretty much despises the Red Cross. He's no veteran, but he is a doctor. I'll have to ask him why.

In general- there are always those who hate & depise whichever person/company/organization is at the top or close to it.

I give you Disney, Starbucks & the USA for examples. (Please don't hijack this thread with whatever you hate about either. If you must- start another thread).

Whever you're big- you also tend to have problem with effeciency. Then there's the fact that someone somewhere is going to make a blunder- and that one blunder will cost you more good will than a 1000 good deeds.

I hate the Red Cross because they call me whenever they want more blood from me. They call A LOT until I answer the phone which I will not because I don't need someone reminding me I need to give blood. I give it when I want to.

Among certain fringe elements of society, another reason to hate the Red Cross is the belief that the organization is one of many tentacles of the Illuminati/Zionist bankers/Trilateral Commission monster of World Government. As this article states (bolding mine):

Colonel Edward Mandell House is identified elsewhere in the article as "the Rothschild agent who secretly directed U.S. affairs during the Woodrow Wilson administration."

That's so far out in left field it's pathetically trying to hitch a lift back to the stadium.

It doesn't look like they learned much from their 9/11 fiasco. They are still a top-heavy, inefficient organization that seeks out as much money as possible while avoiding accountability.

Orange County, Ca. floods, December 2010... same stuff. Instead of helping, they have meetings with compliant locals behind locked doors. Instead of getting out and seeing what needs to be done they recruit volunteers to do damage assessments. Instead of relying on that info, they ask people to come to their office to ask for help. when I called to explain that a lot of my neighbors were stranded in their homes by debris in the road because they wasted our community leaders time in useless meetings, they got mad at me about being emotional. (I had spend 6 hours doing damage assessments, using their bureaucratic forms while they sat on their rear ends.) I know more about how much sleep Tom missed because of this disaster then he knows about me and I'm the flood victim. He didn't ONCE ask me how I was, how was my house, if I sustained any damage or how my neighbors are. But they sure will be there if someone starts handing out disaster funds. Oh, and their main phone number has one number to push for help and 6 numbers to push depending on what kind of help you can offer them, blood, money, volunteer, etc. and the number to get help... that mailbox was full. Want to know how to give money in case of a disaster? Go there and hand cash to some poor slob with a shovel in her hand and sweat on her face or find a church that is organizing volunteers and join up, but don't don't don't waste your money giving it to the Red Cross.

ST's vBulletin 3 Responsive Styles

Our newly refreshed styles in 2017, brings the old vb3 to the new level, responsive and modern feel. It comes with 3 colors with or without sidebar, fixed sized or fluid. Default vbulletin 3 style made responsive also available in the pack.
Purchase Our Style Pack Now